Juan Sanchis, Héctor Bueno, Sergio García-Blas, Joan A Gómez-Hospital, David Martí, Manuel Martínez-Sellés, Laura Domínguez-Pérez, Pablo Díez-Villanueva, José A Barrabés, Francisco Marín, Adolfo Villa, Marcelo Sanmartín, Cinta Llibre, Alessandro Sionis, Antoni Carol, Ernesto Valero, Elena Calvo, María José Morales, Jaime Elízaga, Iván Gómez, Fernando Alfonso, Bruno García Del Blanco, Francesc Formiga, Eduardo Núñez, Julio Núñez, Albert Ariza-Solé
{"title":"NSTEMI 虚弱患者的老年病和侵入性治疗。一项随机临床试验的亚组分析。","authors":"Juan Sanchis, Héctor Bueno, Sergio García-Blas, Joan A Gómez-Hospital, David Martí, Manuel Martínez-Sellés, Laura Domínguez-Pérez, Pablo Díez-Villanueva, José A Barrabés, Francisco Marín, Adolfo Villa, Marcelo Sanmartín, Cinta Llibre, Alessandro Sionis, Antoni Carol, Ernesto Valero, Elena Calvo, María José Morales, Jaime Elízaga, Iván Gómez, Fernando Alfonso, Bruno García Del Blanco, Francesc Formiga, Eduardo Núñez, Julio Núñez, Albert Ariza-Solé","doi":"10.1016/j.rec.2024.08.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>Invasive management in frail patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains controversial. We investigated the impact of various geriatric conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The MOSCA-FRAIL trial included 167 adults aged ≥ 70 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] ≥ 4 points) and NSTEMI, who were randomized to either an invasive (n=84) or conservative (n=83) strategy. In addition to frailty, we measured activities of daily living (Barthel index), cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer test), and comorbidities (Charlson index). The primary endpoint was the difference (invasive minus conservative) in restricted mean survival time (RMST) for all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 3.9 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 93 patients died. The RMST difference favored invasive management at the CFS 25th percentile (CFS=4; 157 days, 95%CI, 18-295; P=.027), which changed to a nonsignificant effect at the 50th and 75th percentiles. The RMST difference remained nonsignificant, irrespective of the severity of other geriatric assessments. In time-to-event analysis, invasive management was associated with an initially lower life expectancy, peaking at around 1 year, among all subgroups. However, patients with CFS=4 experienced a benefit at the end of follow-up (181 days, 95%CI, 19-343), whereas those with CFS >4 did not (-16 days, 95%CI, -217 to 186; interaction P=.16). Subgroups defined by other geriatric markers showed a similar time-dependent trend, albeit with weaker statistical interaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among adults with frailty and NSTEMI, the CFS might be useful for evaluating the relative risks and benefits of invasive management. A CFS >4 could serve as a valuable threshold for decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":38430,"journal":{"name":"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geriatric conditions and invasive management in frail patients with NSTEMI. A subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Juan Sanchis, Héctor Bueno, Sergio García-Blas, Joan A Gómez-Hospital, David Martí, Manuel Martínez-Sellés, Laura Domínguez-Pérez, Pablo Díez-Villanueva, José A Barrabés, Francisco Marín, Adolfo Villa, Marcelo Sanmartín, Cinta Llibre, Alessandro Sionis, Antoni Carol, Ernesto Valero, Elena Calvo, María José Morales, Jaime Elízaga, Iván Gómez, Fernando Alfonso, Bruno García Del Blanco, Francesc Formiga, Eduardo Núñez, Julio Núñez, Albert Ariza-Solé\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rec.2024.08.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>Invasive management in frail patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains controversial. We investigated the impact of various geriatric conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The MOSCA-FRAIL trial included 167 adults aged ≥ 70 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] ≥ 4 points) and NSTEMI, who were randomized to either an invasive (n=84) or conservative (n=83) strategy. In addition to frailty, we measured activities of daily living (Barthel index), cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer test), and comorbidities (Charlson index). The primary endpoint was the difference (invasive minus conservative) in restricted mean survival time (RMST) for all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 3.9 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 93 patients died. The RMST difference favored invasive management at the CFS 25th percentile (CFS=4; 157 days, 95%CI, 18-295; P=.027), which changed to a nonsignificant effect at the 50th and 75th percentiles. The RMST difference remained nonsignificant, irrespective of the severity of other geriatric assessments. In time-to-event analysis, invasive management was associated with an initially lower life expectancy, peaking at around 1 year, among all subgroups. However, patients with CFS=4 experienced a benefit at the end of follow-up (181 days, 95%CI, 19-343), whereas those with CFS >4 did not (-16 days, 95%CI, -217 to 186; interaction P=.16). Subgroups defined by other geriatric markers showed a similar time-dependent trend, albeit with weaker statistical interaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among adults with frailty and NSTEMI, the CFS might be useful for evaluating the relative risks and benefits of invasive management. A CFS >4 could serve as a valuable threshold for decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2024.08.006\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2024.08.006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言和目的:对非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)体弱患者的介入治疗仍存在争议。我们研究了各种老年病的影响:MOSCA-FRAIL试验纳入了167名年龄≥70岁、体弱(临床体弱量表[CFS]≥4分)且患有NSTEMI的成年人,他们被随机分配到有创(84人)或保守(83人)策略中。除虚弱程度外,我们还测量了日常生活活动能力(巴特尔指数)、认知障碍(Pfeiffer 测试)和合并症(Charlson 指数)。主要终点是在中位随访 3.9 年时,全因死亡率的限制性平均生存时间(RMST)的差异(侵入性减去保守性):结果:共有 93 名患者死亡。在CFS第25百分位数时,RMST差异有利于侵入性治疗(CFS=4;157天,95%CI,18-295;P=0.027),在第50和75百分位数时,RMST差异转为无显著影响。无论其他老年评估的严重程度如何,RMST 的差异仍然不显著。从时间到事件的分析来看,在所有亚组中,侵入性治疗与最初较低的预期寿命有关,在1年左右达到峰值。然而,CFS=4的患者在随访结束时获益(181天,95%CI,19-343),而CFS>4的患者则没有获益(-16天,95%CI,-217-186;交互作用 P = .16)。根据其他老年病指标定义的亚组也显示出类似的时间依赖性趋势,尽管统计学交互作用较弱:结论:在体弱且患有 NSTEMI 的成人中,CFS 可能有助于评估侵入性治疗的相对风险和益处。CFS>4可作为决策的重要阈值。
Geriatric conditions and invasive management in frail patients with NSTEMI. A subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Introduction and objectives: Invasive management in frail patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains controversial. We investigated the impact of various geriatric conditions.
Methods: The MOSCA-FRAIL trial included 167 adults aged ≥ 70 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] ≥ 4 points) and NSTEMI, who were randomized to either an invasive (n=84) or conservative (n=83) strategy. In addition to frailty, we measured activities of daily living (Barthel index), cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer test), and comorbidities (Charlson index). The primary endpoint was the difference (invasive minus conservative) in restricted mean survival time (RMST) for all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 3.9 years.
Results: A total of 93 patients died. The RMST difference favored invasive management at the CFS 25th percentile (CFS=4; 157 days, 95%CI, 18-295; P=.027), which changed to a nonsignificant effect at the 50th and 75th percentiles. The RMST difference remained nonsignificant, irrespective of the severity of other geriatric assessments. In time-to-event analysis, invasive management was associated with an initially lower life expectancy, peaking at around 1 year, among all subgroups. However, patients with CFS=4 experienced a benefit at the end of follow-up (181 days, 95%CI, 19-343), whereas those with CFS >4 did not (-16 days, 95%CI, -217 to 186; interaction P=.16). Subgroups defined by other geriatric markers showed a similar time-dependent trend, albeit with weaker statistical interaction.
Conclusions: Among adults with frailty and NSTEMI, the CFS might be useful for evaluating the relative risks and benefits of invasive management. A CFS >4 could serve as a valuable threshold for decision-making.